Citation Nr: 20007737 Decision Date: 01/30/20 Archive Date: 01/29/20 DOCKET NO. 19-21 614 DATE: January 30, 2020 ORDER New and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for basal cell carcinoma of the nose; the appeal is granted to this extent only. REMANDED Service connection for basal cell carcinoma is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Service connection for basal cell carcinoma of the nose was most recently denied in an unappealed April 2014 rating decision. 2. Evidence has been received since the April 2014 rating decision that relates to unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim and raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim of service connection for basal cell carcinoma of the nose. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The April 2014 rating decision denying service connection for basal cell carcinoma of the nose is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103 (2019). 2. New and material evidence has been received since the April 2014 denial of service connection for basal cell carcinoma of the nose. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from March 1969 to December 1970. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2018 rating decision by a Regional Office (RO) of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). New and material evidence Rating actions from which an appeal is not timely perfected become final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103. A final decision cannot be reopened unless new and material evidence is presented. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. New evidence means existing evidence not previously submitted to agency decision makers. Material evidence means existing evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. New and material evidence can be neither cumulative nor redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last prior final denial of the claim sought to be reopened and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). The threshold for determining whether new and material evidence raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating a claim is “low.” See Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110, 117 (2010). Furthermore, consideration is not limited to whether the newly submitted evidence relates specifically to the reason the claim was last denied, but instead should include whether the evidence could reasonably substantiate the claim were the claim to be reopened, either by triggering the Secretary’s duty to assist or through consideration of an alternative theory of entitlement. Id. at 118. In August 2013, the Veteran filed a petition to reopen a claim for a skin condition due to sun damage that he received in Vietnam. An April 2014 rating decision reopened the Veteran’s claim but found that the evidence did not show that the Veteran’s basal cell carcinoma of the nose was related to service. In September 2018, the Veteran filed a petition to reopen his previously denied claim for service connection for basal cell carcinoma. Since the April 2014 rating decision, additional evidence has been received, including articles submitted by the Veteran. One article details potential exposure to chemicals at Fort McClellan, Alabama. Potential exposures could have included, but are not limited to, the following: radioactive compounds (cesium-137 and cobalt-60) used in decontamination training activities in isolated locations on base; chemical warfare agents (mustard gas and nerve agents) used in decontamination testing activities in isolated locations on base; and airborne PCBs from the Monsanto plant in the neighboring town. The article indicated that skin conditions may be the result of exposure to PCBs. The Veteran noted that he served at Fort McClellan, which is confirmed by his service records. Because the article indicates an association between skin conditions and exposure to chemicals at Fort McClellan, the low threshold of Shade has been met and a VA examination is necessary to adjudicate the claim. Accordingly, the Veteran’s claim is reopened. REASONS FOR REMAND Service connection for basal cell carcinoma is remanded. The Veteran has presented several different theories of entitlement concerning the etiology of his basal cell carcinoma, including exposure to sun during service, exposure to herbicides while serving in Vietnam, and exposure to chemicals when he was stationed at Fort McClellan. The Board finds that a VA examination is required to determine the nature and etiology of his basal cell carcinoma. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination for his basal cell carcinoma. The claims folder must reviewed in connection with the examination. The examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s basal cell carcinoma (not limited to the nose) is related to his service, to include exposure to the sun, exposure to herbicides in Vietnam, and exposure to chemicals while stationed at Fort McClellan. A complete rationale must be provided for any opinion reached. 2. Thereafter, readjudicate the remanded issue. If the benefit sought remains denied, the Veteran should be provided with a supplemental statement of the case. The case should then be returned to the Board for appellate review if otherwise in order. WILLIAM H. DONNELLY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Seay, Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.